That was not the point that I was trying to make. If the code point don't
overlap that you can use the same locale logic for both.
The is not true of traditional and simplified Chinese because of the
codepoint overlap even though one might be readable by the other. If for
example, I have a traditional locale I will have han that do not exist in
the simplified locale. Big-5 to Unicode maps to a different set of
characters than GB. I am not sure that the Unicode simplified fonts will
have not only the GB but also the Big5 characters that have been
consolidated. Even so I can not imagine that the collation sequences would
be the same.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 11:25 AM
To: Carl W. Brown
Cc: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional
"Carl W. Brown" wrote:
> In another example Aziri (Cyrillic) and Aziri (Latin) you have no problem.
> In this case you would apply such things as the Turkish dotted and dotless
> rules for case conversion.
Consider Mongolian, where there is no simple mapping between Cyrillic script
Mongolian script (cyri represents the modern language directly, mong
Classical Mongolian, sort of the way English orthography represents the 16th
If the user only reads mn-cyri, then documents in mn-mong might as well be
in a foreign language. This is something that must be represented properly.
-- There is / one art || John Cowan <email@example.com> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT